Emma Scott

  • Year of Call 2011

Introduction

Emma specialises in Crime.

Emma has a breadth of experience defending clients accused of a range of criminal offences including: sexual offences; violence; terrorism; drugs; offensive weapons, bladed articles and firearms; burglary; robbery; fraud; road traffic; and dishonesty offences. She has particular experience defending clients accused of violent crimes (including s.18 and s.20 Grievous Bodily Harm), drug offences and sexual offences.

Emma’s practice has an emphasis on sexual offences.  She regularly defends clients at trial accused of rape (including historic offences), child sex offences (including offences on family members and against those under 13), and possession of indecent images of children.  She has experience of pre-recorded cross-examination of Complainants (s.28), the use of intermediaries, and representing vulnerable defendants.  Emma’s cases can involve the application, appeal, variation and breach of Sexual Risk Orders and Sexual Offences Prevention Orders/Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, as well as Criminal Behaviour Orders.

Emma has experience working as a led junior and on multi-handed and lengthy trials.   She represents clients at appeals, from appeals from the Magistrates’ and Youth Courts to the Crown Court, and in the Court of Appeal. She represents clients who are not fit and conducts trials of the facts. 

Emma also has experience of financial crime and fraud.  She previously spent four months working in the Anti-Bribery and Corruption Department at Deutsche Bank. 

Additionally, Emma has experience appearing before the Court Martial.

Background

Prior to coming to the Bar, Emma worked as a Paralegal at a number of firms, including Corker Binning, Macfarlanes, and the on-site legal firm servicing GE Money.

During the time she worked as a Paralegal at Corker Binning, she was heavily involved with a range of cases including defending a senior executive in a Serious Fraud Office overseas corruption prosecution relating to Bahrain and defending clients subject to Serious Fraud Office and/or Financial Conduct Authority investigations. At Macfarlanes, she worked as a Paralegal on a range of Financial Conduct Authority cases relating to the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products by a major bank. At the on-site legal firm servicing GE Money, Emma handled mortgage repossessions. 

Notable Cases

Crime

 R v Vinny Balmer [2021] Six day trial for multiple counts of rape and voyeurism.  Mixed verdicts following majority direction.  Guilty verdicts on three counts of rape and voyeurism.  Mr Balmer had entered Guilty pleas to two counts of common assault ahead of the trial.  The jury acquitted of two counts of rape.  Sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.  The news article can be found here: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/jarrow-rapist-dragged-woman-down-20688982.amp

R v David Gallon  [2021] Seven day trial for multiple counts of sexual offences against two child Complainants, including rape and offences against a child under 13.  This trial involved s.28 pre-recorded cross-examination of a child sexual Complainant. Mr Gallon was also a child during the alleged commission of the offences against one Complainant.  An intermediary was used during his evidence.  Mixed verdicts following a majority direction.  Guilty verdicts in relation to causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, four counts of sexual activity with a child, and one count of rape.  The jury was unable to reach a verdict on sexual assault of a child under 13, attempted rape and rape.  Mr Gallon entered a plea to sexual activity with a child as an alternative.  Mr Gallon was sentenced to 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  The news article can be found here:  'He ripped my dignity from me': Victims who helped put Blyth predator in jail reveal ongoing torment - Chronicle Live

R v SB [2021]  Not Guilty verdict after a six day trial for rape at a university halls of residence.

R v Mabhena [2021] Guilty verdict for rape following a three day trial and a majority direction.  Sentenced to 7.5 years’ imprisonment.

R v BR [2021] Not Guilty verdict of sexual assault following a three day trial.  BR was registered blind or partially sighted and was accused of sexual assault during a night out.

R v KT [2021] Crown offered no evidence on four counts of indecent assault (historic sexual offences which included  the use of a dog) after numerous disclosure issues and a review of the case.  Case involved multiple defendants (Crown offered no evidence in relation to all defendants).

R v LR [2021] LR was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for attempting to cause a child to engage in sexual activity and attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming following Guilty pleas.  Involved an online ‘sting’ operation by members of the public in which there was no actual child, but an adult who posed as a 13 year old child.  Sexual messages and images were sent by LR.  Arrangements were made for LR to meet the child but LR was met by the group who had organised the ‘sting’ instead.  LR  had a number of learning and cognitive difficulties which impacted the commission of the offence and sentencing was a delicate exercise of starting with the impact as if there had been a real child (with a small deduction for the fact that there was not), and the incorporation of the overarching guidelines for sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments.  

R v XX [2020] Not Guilty verdicts on all six counts of sexual activity with a child family member following a four day trial.  Involved cross examination of child sexual Complainant and another child witness.

R v AJ [2020] Not Guilty of (armed) robbery.  Case involved the allegation that four males, one armed with a knife, targeted a vulnerable man who was suspected to be the victim of 'cuckooing'.

R v Fernando Pope [2019]  Murder trial at the Central Criminal Court (worked as led junior).  Found Guilty of murder after trial, sentenced to life with a minimum term of 25 years.  The news article can be found here:  Wandsworth stabbing killer, 21, guilty of murder - BBC News

R v Robin Lake [2019] Historic rape and sexual assault of a child.  Found Guilty of rape.  Sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.  The news article can be found here:  'You thought you'd got away with it': Judge finally jails sex beast who raped schoolgirl - Chronicle Live

R v DR [2019] Not Guilty of three historic child sexual assaults on two Complainants.

R v CG [2019 and 2020]  Multi-handed county lines Class A drugs conspiracy raising issues of human trafficking.  Jury discharged on first trial.  Guilty plea at re-trial.

R v Alice Cutter [2019] Led junior on a multi-handed trial involving membership of the proscribed far right organisation, National Action.  Hung jury (retrial was fixed for 2020).  The news article can be found here:  National Action trial: Jurors unable to reach verdicts - BBC News

R v MM [2018] Not Guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud following a six day trial. 

R v JS [2018] Not Guilty of rape of an ex-partner following a four day trial.

R v Blacker [2018] Not Guilty of sexual assault, common assault, and committing an offence with the intention to commit a sexual offence. There were two Complainants in this case and the issue was identification. The news article can found here:  Man cleared of two South Tyneside sex attacks | Shields Gazette

R v KD [2018] Prosecution of a teacher for aggravated trespass stayed as an abuse of process.

R v Boz [2018] Successful submission of no case to answer in relation to making threats to destroy or damage property. The issue was fundamentally contradictory Prosecution eye witness evidence.

R v Winter [2018] Not Guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm with intent (s.18) resulting in a fellow student being blinded by a pool cue. Sentence mitigated to 2 years’ imprisonment after a plea to Grievous Bodily Harm (s.20).

R v Wint [2018]. Possession of indecent images of children (range of Category A-C, moving and still images). Sentence mitigated to 18 months’ suspended sentence after trial.

R v Ndiaye [2018]. Grievous Bodily Harm with intent and burglary on an ex-partner. Dangerousness found but sentence mitigated to 13 years’ imprisonment with an extended licence for 5 years. 

R v Alali [2018]. Grievous Bodily Harm with intent, involving four strikes to the head with a hammer as the Complainant was in bed. Sentence mitigated to 8 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

R v Theakston [2018]. Local council prosecution. No evidence offered on five Counts of fraud and breach of trading regulations after a letter of representations was sent to the Prosecutor. Sentenced to a fine for one charge of failing to provide written notice of the right to cancel a contract.

R v G [2017]. Appeal from the Youth Court. Appeal successful resulting in sentence of 4 months’ detention imposed for a second-strike knife offence being quashed and a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance imposed.

R v Gregory [2017]. Not Guilty by reason of insanity of criminal damage of a Gainsborough painting at the National Gallery. A news article can be found here: Man who slashed National Gallery painting 'heard voices' - BBC News

R v LE [2017]. Hung jury following a sexual assault on public transport trial which contained CCTV evidence.

R v Morat [2017]. Possession with intent to supply Class A and B drugs trial. Plea to simple possession of Class A and possession with intent to supply Class B drugs was accepted on day of trial. Sentence mitigated to 8 months’ imprisonment.

R v Nworgu [2016]. Five day trial for two counts of possession of identity documents (one with intent). Sentence mitigated to 9 months’ imprisonment

R v Patel [2016]. Third strike burglary trial. Application to exclude recognition identification evidence successful. Crown offered no evidence and a Not Guilty verdict was returned.

R v CB [2016]. Youth Court. Two successful submissions of no case to answer for assault. Guilty plea to one assault. Three month referral order.

R v A Harris [2016]. Successful submission of no case to answer for assault. Not Guilty verdict.

R v Odusina [2016]. No activation of Suspended Sentence Order for possession of a bladed article.

Criminal Appeals

R v GH [2018] After a successful appeal to the Crown Court, conditional discharge handed down following Guilty pleas to two charges of common assault by throwing cold soup protesting at a prolife demonstration.

R v George Austin [2018] Successful appeal to the Court of Appeal of a compensation order of £8,926.35 made in following a theft conviction, which was substituted for an order for £1,000.

R v PO and others [2017]. Led junior on a multi-handed kidnap and blackmail trial. Not Guilty verdicts for all defendants in relation to kidnap. Sentence handed down for blackmail was 5 years’ imprisonment, which was successfully reduced on appeal to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

Qualifications

Call July 2011 – Gray’s Inn

Bar Professional Training Course (Outstanding) – BPP Law School (2010 – 2011)

Graduate Diploma in Law (Distinction) – BPP Law School (2009 – 2010)

BSc Environmental Geography (2:1) – University College London (2006 – 2009)

Call July 2011 – Gray’s Inn

Bar Professional Training Course (Outstanding) – BPP Law School (2010 – 2011)

Graduate Diploma in Law (Distinction) – BPP Law School (2009 – 2010)

BSc Environmental Geography (2:1) – University College London (2006 – 2009)

Awards & Prizes

Cynthia Terry Award – Gray’s Inn (2009)

Publications

'Money not power - UK AML/CTF Action Plan comment' written with Jason Mansell (Money Laundering Bulletin: April 2016)

SFO ‘self-funding’ and government handouts: ethical and constitutional? (CrimeLine, May 2013)

The National Crime Agency: a new weapon in the legal armoury, or just another change of letterhead? (The Barrister; CrimeLine; May 2013)

GDPR Notice

Privacy Notice - General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”)

 Please read the following information carefully. This privacy notice contains information about the information collected, stored and otherwise processed about you and the reasons for the processing. It also tells you who I share this information with, the security mechanisms I have put in place to protect your data and how to contact me in the event you need further information. 

 

Who Am I?

 

I,Emma Scott collects, use and am responsible for personal information about you. When I do this I am the ‘controller’ of this information for the purposes of the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

 

If you need to contact me about your data or the processing carried out you can use the contact details at the end of this document.

 

What do I do with your information?

 

Information collected

When carrying out the provision of legal services or providing a reference I collect some or all of the following personal information that you provide:

 

Information collected from other sources

The same categories of information may also be obtained from third parties, such as other legal professionals or experts, members of the public, your family and friends, witnesses, courts and other tribunals, investigators, government departments, regulators, public records and registers.  

 

 

 

How I use your personal information: Purposes

 

I may use your personal information for the following purposes:

 

 

 

Whether information has to be provided by you, and why

 

If I have been instructed by you or on your behalf on a case or if you have asked for a reference or have applied for a mini-pupillage or pupillage, your personal information has to be provided, to enable me to provide you with advice or representation, or the reference or to consider and process your application, and to enable me to comply with my professional obligations, and to keep accounting records.

 

 

The legal basis for processing your personal information

 

I rely on the following as the lawful bases on which I collect and use your personal information:

 

Who will I share your personal information with?

 

If you are a client, some of the information you provide will be protected by legal professional privilege unless and until the information becomes public in the course of any proceedings or otherwise. As a barrister I have an obligation to keep your information confidential, except where it otherwise becomes public or is disclosed as part of the case or proceedings.

 

It may be necessary to share your information with the following:

 

 

I may be required to provide your information to regulators, such as the Bar Standards Board, the Financial Conduct Authority or the Information Commissioner’s Office. In the case of the Information Commissioner’s Office, there is a risk that your information may lawfully be disclosed by them for the purpose of any other civil or criminal proceedings, without my consent or yours, which includes privileged information.

 

I may also be required to disclose your information to the police or intelligence services, where required or permitted by law. 

 

 

Sources of information

The personal information I obtain may include information which has been obtained from:

 

 

Transfer of your information outside the European Economic Area (EEA)

 

This privacy notice is of general application and as such it is not possible to state whether it will be necessary to transfer your information out of the EEA in any particular case or for a reference. However, if you reside outside the EEA or your case or the role for which you require a reference involves persons or organisations or courts and tribunals outside the EEA then it may be necessary to transfer some of your data to that country outside of the EEA for that purpose. If you are in a country outside the EEA or if the instructions you provide come from outside the EEA then it is inevitable that information will be transferred to those countries. If this applies to you and you wish additional precautions to be taken in respect of your information please indicate this when providing initial instructions.

 

Some countries and organisations outside the EEA have been assessed by the European Commission and their data protection laws and procedures found to show adequate protection. Most do not. If your information has to be transferred outside the EEA, then it may not have the same protections and you may not have the same rights as you would within the EEA.

 

I may transfer your personal information to the following which are located outside the European Economic Area (EEA):

 

If I decide to publish a judgment or other decision of a Court or Tribunal containing your information then this will be published to the world. 

 

I will not otherwise transfer personal information outside the EEA except as necessary for providing legal services or for any legal proceedings.

 

If you would like any further information please use the contact details at the end of this document.

 

How long will I store your personal data?

 

I will normally store all your information:

 

 

Consent

 

As explained above, I am relying on your explicit consent to process your information in relation to particularly sensitive information. You provided this consent when you agreed that I would provide legal services/you asked me to provide a reference/ applied for mini-pupillage or pupillage.

 

You have the right to withdraw this consent at any time, but this will not affect the lawfulness of any processing activity I have carried out prior to you withdrawing your consent. However, where I also rely on other bases for processing your information, you may not be able to prevent processing of your data. For example, if you have asked me to work for you and I have spent time on your case, you may owe me money which I will be entitled to claim.

 

If there is an issue with the processing of your information, please contact my clerks using the contact details below.

 

 

Your Rights

 

Under the GDPR, you have a number of rights that you can exercise in certain circumstances. These are free of charge. In summary, you may have the right to:

 

If you want more information about your rights under the GDPR please see the Guidance from the Information Commissioners Office on Individual’s rights under the GDPR.  

 

If you want to exercise any of these rights, please:

 

I will respond to you within one month from when I receive your request.

 

 

How to make a complaint?

 

The GDPR also gives you the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioners’ Office if you are in the UK, or with the supervisory authority of the Member State where you work, normally live or where the alleged infringement of data protection laws occurred. The Information Commissioner’s Office can be contacted at http://ico.org.uk/concerns/

 

 

Future Processing

I do not intend to process your personal information except for the reasons stated within this privacy notice. If this changes, this privacy notice will be amended and placed on the website.

 

Changes to this privacy notice

This privacy notice was originally published in August 2019 and last updated in February 2020.

 

I continually review my privacy practices and may change this policy from time to time. When I do it will be placed on the website.

 

 

Contact Details

If you have any questions about this privacy notice or the information I hold about you, please contact me or my clerks.

 

The best way to contact me is to write to me at my Chambers address of 33 Bedford Row Chambers, 33 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4JH or contact my clerks by email at clerks@33bedfordrow.co.uk or by telephone on 020 7242 6476.

 

 

Transparency Information

Emma Scott is a self-employed barrister regulated by the Bar Standards Board.  

 

Emma is registered with the Information Commissioner (reference: ZA243041).

 

Emma holds professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.

 

Emma does not accept direct access cases.